Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-348893

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is internally inconsistent with its own DEIS findings on wildfire risk, economic net benefits, and wildlife/water impacts, and fails to address the Tenth Circuit's legal holding regarding the rule's validity.

Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence, Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Still open to the agency

Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.

Topics

Wildlife Habitat
- “look for elk, deer, and bighorn sheep”
- “elk avoid areas near roads and select unroaded habitat”
- “roads built for extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes”
- “protect big game habitat, fisheries, and wildlife connectivity”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Thirty years of camping and hiking in the Pecos Wilderness”
- “We go there because it is remote and wild”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “My kids grew up in that place and they want to return to it”
Water Quality Quantity
- “739 municipal water intakes in the Southwestern region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Clean water is a finite resource”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale”
- “abandons the wildlife and watershed protections”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “We have already seen fire damage in the Pecos Wilderness and we do not want to see more damage from man-made causes”
- “Roads bring more ignitions”

What it names

National Forests: Carson National Forest Santa Fe National Forest
Roadless areas: El InviernoPecos
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidence

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Thirty years of camping and hiking in the Pecos Wilderness have given my family something we do not want to lose. We go there because it is remote and wild. In the high country and along the Pecos River we look for elk, deer, and bighorn sheep, for red-tailed hawks, songbirds, and Steller's, Piñon, and Scrub jays. My kids grew up in that place and they want to return to it with their own families. The Pecos inventoried roadless area in the Carson National Forest and El Invierno in the Santa Fe National Forest are part of what makes that possible. The proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens both, and I oppose it. The agency has justified this rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, but its own record contradicts that justification directly. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." We have already seen fire damage in the Pecos Wilderness and we do not want to see more damage from man-made causes. Roads bring more ignitions, and the agency's own draft environmental impact statement confirms it. I ask that the agency reconcile this proposal with DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside affected roadless areas, and explain in the record why its stated justification departs from its own prior findings. The economic case for rescission is just as weak. The agency's record shows that the timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production and that oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is about 0.4 percent of national production. Against that, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency cannot even establish a net benefit in its own analysis, yet it proposes to expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. I ask that the agency explain how an action whose own numbers fail to confirm a net gain justifies that expansion. My family looks for elk and deer throughout the forest and in the riparian corridors near the Pecos River. The agency's own citations show that elk avoid areas near roads and select unroaded habitat with cover and forage, and that elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed. The DEIS cites research finding that roads built for extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes and increased their movement speed. Commenters specifically asked the agency to protect big game habitat, fisheries, and wildlife connectivity, and Alternative 3 was built to address those concerns. The agency then chose the alternative that protects none of it. New Mexico holds 120 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,505,508 acres, and 739 municipal water intakes in the Southwestern region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Clean water is a finite resource, and the agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. I want the agency to state clearly in the record why it chose an alternative that abandons the wildlife and watershed protections commenters specifically requested. The proposal also argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule. But the agency's own record quotes its prior position that the Roadless Rule reflected an "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach," and a court has already evaluated what happens when the agency acts on that view. The Tenth Circuit, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, reversed and remanded the district court's permanent injunction and held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies that doomed the previous state-by-state replacement, and address the Tenth Circuit's holding that the rule did not create de facto wilderness. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write the 2001 rule. It has held none to undo it. My family has been part of this place for over 30 years. The old-growth spruce, fir, and aspen in the Pecos Wilderness exist because some lands were kept from roads and development. That is not an accident. It is a policy choice, and this administration should not reverse it without answering the questions its own record raises. Sincerely, Susan Schauer White Rock, NM